USA



Home Blog Page 10

Canada’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Hatching Eggs, Breeders, Chickens and Turkeys to be updated

By
Sophi Fairman
-

The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) is pleased to announce that Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC), Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC), the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP), and Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors (CPEP) have collectively initiated an update to the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Hatching Eggs, Breeders, Chickens, and Turkeys. The update will be guided by NFACC’s Code development process.

The Code development process includes a survey, launched at the outset of each Code, to capture top-of-mind welfare concerns from any and all stakeholders. The input received will help the Code Committee understand the kinds of issues people wish to see considered in the Code’s update. Everyone is invited to participate; the survey for this Code will be open until October 25, 2024 and is available at www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/chickens-turkeys-and-breeders.

In a collective statement TFC, CFC, CHEP, and CPEP noted, “Canadian poultry producers are dedicated to providing exceptional care for their birds. By using the latest scientific reviews to update the Code for hatching eggs, breeders, chickens, and turkeys, the poultry sectors look forward to working with our partners at NFACC in updating this Code.”

“The Codes are the foundation of the poultry sectors’ on-farm animal care programs. Canadian hatching egg farmers, hatcheries, chicken farmers, and turkey farmers all follow national, mandatory animal care programs that are based on the Code requirements.”

Canada’s Codes of Practice provide critical guidance for the care and handling of farm animals. They reflect our national understanding of animal care requirements and recommended practices and serve as educational tools, reference materials for regulations, and the foundation for farm animal care assessment programs.

“The Code development process helps diverse groups work together to improve the lives of farmed animals,” says Hans Kristensen, NFACC Chair. “Codes of Practice provide farmers with a recognized framework to demonstrate their commitment to welfare standards that are informed by science, support public trust, and are practical to implement on-farm.”

Five Codes – beef cattle, equine, pig, sheep, and poultry – are being updated. The pullet and layer Code is being amended. Visit www.nfacc.ca for more details and a timeline outlining the steps and progress made on the respective Codes.

Financial support was provided through the AgriAssurance Program under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

About NFACC

NFACC is a collaborative partnership of diverse stakeholders created in 2005 to share information and work together on farm animal care and welfare. It is the national lead for farm animal care issues in Canada and operates as a Division of Animal Health Canada. For more information on NFACC, visit www.nfacc.ca.

About the Industry Groups

Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC) is the national organization representing Canada’s 510+ turkey farmers that encourages cooperation throughout the Canadian turkey industry. Canadian turkey farmers are committed to ensuring the humane care and respectful treatment of turkeys while providing wholesome and safe food to consumers.

Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC) ensures that their 2,800 farmers produce the right amount of fresh, safe, high-quality chicken to meet Canada’s needs. CFC plays a key role in developing, partnering and managing programs for Canada’s chicken farmers that prove its producers continue to grow the high-quality chicken that Canadians trust.

Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP) is the national representative of over 200 broiler hatching egg producers across 8 member provinces. They are dedicated to animal welfare, food safety initiatives and opportunities to improve the agricultural industry.

Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors (CPEP)  is the voice of a sustainable poultry and egg processing industry, feeding Canadians safe and nutritious food. They support the work of their members, who buy their products from Canadian farmers and transform them into the high-quality, nutritious chicken, turkey, and egg products that Canadians know and love.

Source: NFACC

Comparison of biochar and Poultry Litter Treatment (PLT) amendments on broiler litter quality and bird performance

By
Sophi Fairman
-
The poultry market is expected to increase by 17.8 % by 2030, with poultry meat consisting of 41 % of the global meat market (FAO, 2023). The demand for poultry is driven by its affordability and nutritional content (FAO, 2023). The United States produces the most poultry products worldwide, with broiler (meat chicken) production consisting of 67 % of total poultry sales (USDA, 2023). Because of the rising demand, broiler producers must implement practices to improve efficiency and bird productivity while meeting bird welfare and sustainability standards.
Broiler farms may contain multiple houses with flocks ranging from 23,000 birds per house to 56,000 in larger facilities (ACES, 2022, MSDAC, 2023). Birds are grown on a substrate called litter, which is a heterogeneous mixture of bedding material (wood shavings, sawdust, rice hulls), excreta, spilled feed, wasted water, and feathers. Birds are in contact with litter throughout the grow-out cycle, and litter quality has a substantial impact on performance and welfare (Nagaraj et al., 2007). Poor litter conditions prevent broilers from reaching their genetic potential, and ultimately cause economic losses (Ritz et al., 2017). Continuous excreta deposition into the litter contributes to high moisture, ammonia (NH3) concentrations, and microbial loads, all of which negatively impact bird health (Tabler et al., 2021). High pH and moisture promote the generation of ammonia gas, which can cause irritation to birds’ skin, eyes, and lungs, and decrease growth rate (Martland, 1984; Nairn and Watson, 1972; Nagaraj et al., 2007). In addition, excess moisture provides favorable environments for pathogens and NH3-generating bacteria to grow (Ritz et al., 2017). A litter moisture range of 20-25 % is optimal and can mitigate excess NH3 volatilization and microbial growth (Ritz et al., 2017). NH3 levels should not exceed 25 ppm because it negatively affects bird and worker health (Miles et al., 2004; Sheikh et al., 2018).
Chicken feet (paws) are a major export to overseas markets. Paws bring in more revenue than chicken legs, falling just behind breast and wing revenue (USPEEC, 2009). If NH3 and moisture are not managed effectively, it can become a threat to paw quality, eye health, and the respiratory system. Furthermore, footpad lesions allow bacteria from the litter to infect the bird, which can result in weight loss, stunted growth, and death (Tabler et al., 2022). Footpad quality is used as a criterion to audit bird welfare in the United States and Europe (Martland, 1985; Mayne, 2005).
One strategy to mitigate NH3 is to apply litter amendments. Commonly used amendments include acidifiers, such as Poultry Litter Treatment® (PLT). PLT consists of sodium bisulfate and reduces NH3 volatilization through reducing litter pH. Litter pH typically ranges between a pH of 7.5 to 8.5, and NH3 is present in a gaseous phase at a pH > 8.0 (Ritz et al., 2017). Reducing NH3 volatilization also sequesters nitrogen in the litter as non-volatile ammonium (NH4+), which increases its value as a fertilizer and reduces the release of air pollutants. However, studies indicate that litter acidifying agents, including PLT, can lose effectiveness after 14 to 21 days (Ritz et al., 2017; Linhoss et al. 2019). PLT does not affect litter moisture, and excess moisture can contribute to increased NH3 volatilization (Terzich et al., 1998).
Lowering litter pH can reduce overall bacterial populations, including NH3-generating bacteria that grow in basic environments (Ritz et al. 2017). However, in a bench-scale study, PLT application resulted in significantly higher E. coli populations than the control litter (Mohammadi-Aragh et al., 2022b). The study also reported that total aerobic bacteria populations were comparable between PLT-treated litter and the control litter. Similarly, a study conducted by Pope and Cherry (2000) found no statistical difference between PLT-treated and control litter bacterial loads after one week following PLT application. The varying results of PLT on bacterial populations indicates that its application may not significantly reduce bacterial populations in all cases. Researchers need to improve the understanding of PLT’s impact on litter bacteria and moisture to provide integrators with reliable information.
Biochar (BC) is a highly stable and porous material that is generated as a byproduct in some agricultural and forest products operations. In Mississippi, forestry is the third largest agricultural industry and wood is a dominating agricultural commodity in the southeastern United States (MSDAC, 2023). Some operations use wood wastes (sawdust, trimmings, shavings, etc.) to generate electricity for the plants through gasifying the wastes at high-temperature, low-oxygen conditions. The solid byproduct of the gasification process is a charred material, known as BC. BC has a high surface area and porosity that confer absorptive and adsorptive properties. BC morphology and chemical characteristics are affected primarily by pyrolysis conditions and feedstock (Ippolito et al., 2020). BC has been extensively studied in agricultural applications and it has been shown to be an effective soil amendment and soil conditioner. In addition, it is currently being studied to determine its effectiveness as a broiler litter amendment. Previous research has found that BC increases water-holding capacity and reduces NH3 volatilization in broiler litter without negatively impacting bird performance (Linhoss et al., 2019). However, there is limited information on BC as a litter amendment in broiler facilities and how it compares to conventional amendments regarding litter quality and bird performance.
Water activity (Aw) is a thermodynamic property that describes the availability of the water to escape. Specifically, Aw is defined as the vapor pressure of water in a system divided by that of pure water at the same temperature (Fernández, 2011). It is commonly used in the food industry to determine the amount of free water available for microbial metabolism (Van Der Berg and Bruin, 1981). Aw may also be useful for a more in-depth evaluation of moisture in various environments and for determining the amount of bioavailable water for microorganisms. There are limited studies of how BC impacts Aw in broiler litter environments; however, previous research demonstrated a positive relationship between MC and Aw (Dunlop et al., 2016a; Linhoss et al., 2023).
Because BC’s effectiveness as a litter amendment is poorly understood, the study aimed to compare how BC compares to PLT as a litter amendment with regards to NH3 volatilization and live performance of broilers grown to 42 d. In addition, the impact of litter amendments on Aw, MC, and pH was evaluated. The current study intends to bridge this knowledge gap and provide integrators information on the effects of BC on litter quality and live bird performance compared to PLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Design

A total of 660 straight run Ross 708 chicks were obtained from a local commercial hatchery on the day of the trial. Chicks were randomly distributed among 15 environmental chambers (1.52 × 2.74 m) containing used litter with 44 birds per chamber. The litter was used in a previous trial at the USDA-ARS Poultry Research Unit in Mississippi State, MS. The chambers were equipped with two tube feeders, a nipple drinker line, and one 5000K LED bulb. Birds had access to food and water ad libitum. The trial began on October 4th, 2023 (d 0) and ended on November 15th, 2023 (d 42). The air temperature was adjusted from 33 °C at d 0 to 22 °C at d 42.
Birds were fed three phases of feed diets: starter (d 1 – d 14), grower (d 15 – d 28), and finisher (d 29 – d 42), all of which met or exceeded NRC recommendations (NRC, 1994). Diet formulations are reported on a percent-by-mass basis and not the complete diet formulation. Methionine, lysine, threonine, and valine were included as crystalline feed-grade amino acids for DL-methionine, L-lysine, L-threonine, and L-valine, respectively. Choline was included as 70 % choline chloride salt. The starter diet consisted of 56.14 % corn, 37.55 % soybean meal, 2.97 % soy oil, 0.36 % methionine, 0.23 % lysine, 0.16 % threonine, 0.09 % choline, and 0.05 % valine. The grower diet consisted of 62.86 % corn, 31.27 % soybean meal, 2.55 % soy oil, 0.20 % methionine, 0.20 % lysine, 0.10 % threonine, 0.07 % choline, and 0.02 % valine. Lastly, the finisher diet consisted of 67.14 % corn, 27.99 % soybean meal, 2.42 % soy oil, 0.30 % methionine, 0.20 % lysine, 0.08 % threonine, and 0.06 % choline. Starter, grower, and finisher diets comprised 21.55 %, 19.32 %, and 18.57 % crude protein, respectively. Corn and soybean meal contained 6.50 % and 46.50 % crude protein, respectively. Digestible lysine levels were 1.21 %, 1.06 %, and 1.00 % for starter, grower, and finisher diets, respectively.
Chambers were checked daily for mortalities, and five birds from each treatment were weighed on d 14 and 42. Paw quality was assessed on day 42 to assign footpad scores (FPS). Scores were assigned based on three degrees of skin lesion severity: 0 = no visible lesions; 1 = mild lesions; 2 = severe lesions (Ekstand et al., 1998). All methodologies and procedures were approved for this study by the USDA Agricultural Research Service Animal Care and Use Committee.
Pine (Pinus spp.) BC was collected from a local commercial sawmill in Mississippi. The BC was generated at 700 – 1000 °C and was air dried prior to sieving. BC was sieved to a particle size range of 750 – 1400 µm and was surface applied to used broiler litter at a 30 % inclusion rate (vol/vol). Poultry Litter Treatment® (PLT) was surface applied at 0.73 kg∙m-2, following the manufacturer’s instructions (Jones-Hamilton Co., Walbridge, OH, USA). Litter treatments of BC and PLT were applied the day before chick placement (d 0) (Fig 1). Litter samples were collected on the morning before chicks were introduced to form a baseline measurement MC and Aw. Litter NH3 was also analyzed on d 0 before chicks were placed.
Fig 1

  1. Download: Download high-res image (730KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 1. Litter treatments were applied the day prior to chick placement: Control (a), BC (b), PLT (c).

Equilibrium NH3 concentration was analyzed using a stainless-steel dynamic flux chamber connected to a LumaSense photoacoustic field gas monitor (Innova-1412, LumaSense Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Woodbury et al. (2006) provides a description of the flux chamber’s construction and functionality, and a similar protocol was followed as Davis et al. (2015). A stir fan (Radio Shack model 273-240, Radio Shack, Fort Worth, TX) was attached to the top of the flux chamber’s interior to promote uniform gas distribution. The flux chamber was placed on the surface of the litter at approximately the same location in each chamber. NH3 concentrations (ppm) were recorded after a 20 min run time. The flux chamber was then cleaned with disinfectant wipes and ran for 2 min to allow clean air to pass through before reading the next sample. Litter NH3 concentrations were measured on d 0, 14, 28, and 41.
Litter treatments included BC, PLT, and a control of no litter amendment. Each treatment contained five replicate chambers. Two composite samples were collected per chamber for MC, Aw, pH, and nutrient analysis on d 0, 17, 29, and 41. A portion of the samples were set aside for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium (N-P-K) and pH analysis, which were stored at -20 °C until submission to the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory. Nutrient analysis data were reported as the nutrient percentage on a dry matter basis. Briefly, total nitrogen was determined using an Elementar vario El Cube (Elementar Americas, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY), and pH was measured by mixing 20 mL of deionized water with 5 g of litter sample. The pH was measured after 30 min. Chamber temperature and relative humidity (RH) were measured with combination probes (HMP60, Vaisala, Helsinki, Finland). Data were recorded at two-minute intervals using a datalogger (CR1000X, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT, USA) through an analog multiplexer (VOLT116, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT, USA). MC was measured using an oven-drying protocol described in the ASAE S358.2 standard (ASABE, 2008). Wet-basis moisture content was calculated using Equation 1.(1)
A dewpoint soil water potential meter (WPAC, Meter, Pullman, WA) was calibrated with 0.50 mol∙kg-1 KCL per the manufacturer’s instruction. Aw was then measured at 25 °C, and Equation 2 was used to convert the water potential data to Aw.(2)
BC physiochemical characteristics were measured at the Mississippi State University Department of Chemistry. Total pore volume (PV), pore diameter, and specific surface area (SSA) were measured using Brunaeuer-Emmet-Teller (BET) analysis (Micrometircs, Tristar II Plus, Norcross, GA) using N2 as the adsorption gas at 77 K. BC ultimate analysis was conducted using an elemental analyzer (Elementar, Unicube, Langenselbold, Hesse, Germany). Oxygen percentage was calculated by subtracting N, C, S, and H percentages from 100. Ash content was determined by comparing sample weights before and after placing them in an oven at 600 °C for 24 hr.

Statistical Analysis

The study consisted of litter treatments (BC, PLT, and control), and four sampling days. Each treatment included five replicate chambers, and each chamber was considered the experimental unit. Results were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) using PROC MIXED (SAS, 2022). Means were separated using Fisher’s LSD and PDMIXX800. Bird performance data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX in SAS and, means were separated using Fisher’s LSD. Mortality data was arcsin transformed. A significance level of P ≤ 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pine (Pinus spp.) BC ultimate analysis showed a composition of carbon (91.4 %), O (2.1 %), N (0.2 %), H (1.3 %), S (0.1 %), and ash (4.9 %). These chemical compositions are consistent with a previous study using pine BC from the same source (Mohammadi-Aragh et al., 2022a). BET analysis revealed a lower SSA and PV than BC used in the previous trial, but a larger pore diameter. SSA, PV, and pore size were 5.12 m2 g-1, < 0.0022 cm3 g-1, and 17.3 Å, respectively. In the previous study using pine BC, the SSA and PV were 34.65 m2 g-1 and 0.009 cm3 g-1, respectively. Pore diameter in the current BC measured 6.37 Å longer than BC used previously. It is expected that BC sourced from local operations would have variability in morphological and physiochemical properties, which should be considered prior to use. The BC pH used in this study was 9.97.
Litter treatment, grow-out time, and their interaction had a significant impact on NH3 volatilization (P < .0001) (Table 1). Overall, BC demonstrated the highest NH3 levels (43 ppm) and PLT the lowest (4 ppm). The mean BC NH3 concentrations were likely higher due to increased NH3 production later in the grow-out cycle (Fig 2a). At day 41, mean NH3 concentrations were 104 ppm for BC-treated rooms, which was over the recommended levels of 25 ppm (Miles, 2004) (Fig 2a). This concentration was significantly elevated compared to the control (5 ppm) and PLT (9 ppm) at d 41. However, BC-treated litter did not have abnormally high MC or pH at d 41, indicating there are other factors driving the high NH3 levels. Reviewing the data from day 41 BC treatments indicated all BC-treated chambers contained high equilibrium NH3; therefore, the mean concentration was not skewed by one or two anomalous readings. The cause of the elevated NH3 is unknown and needs further investigation. Litter NH3 decreased from days 0 to 28 for the control and BC-treated litter, and there was no significant change in NH3 between days 28 and 41 for PLT and the control.

Table 1. Broiler litter characteristics and equilibrium ammonia concentrations over a 42 d grow-out

Treatment Total N ( %) Phosphorus ( %) Potassium ( %) pH Aw NH3 (ppm) MC ( %)
Amendment
Control 3.85b 3.63 5.26ab 6.99ab 0.68 23.91b 21.48a
PLT 3.98a 4.10 5.69a 6.69b 0.71 4.58c 21.02a
Biochar 3.10c 3.10 4.50b 7.18a 0.66 43.17a 16.01b
SEM 0.03 0.34 0.31 0.11 0.02 4.44 0.02
P-value <.0001 0.0883 0.0174 0.0031 0.2048 <.0001 0.0250
Time
Day 0 3.30d 3.73ab 4.94b 7.09a 0.56c 40.96a 12.58c
Day 17 3.53c 3.80a 5.19a 7.13a 0.52d 8.80b 12.89c
Day 29 3.73b 3.55bc 5.27a 6.89b 0.79b 6.28b 22.53b
Day 41 4.01a 3.36c 5.19a 6.69c 0.86a 39.51a 30.03a
SEM 0.05 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.02 3.54 0.001
P-value <.0001 0.0010 0.0118 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
Interaction Effect
P-value 0.0013 0.2428 0.0773 <.0001 0.873 <.0001 0.889
Meansa-d within the same column that do not share a similar letter are significantly different at P ≤ .05. Total Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are reported as % of dry weight.
Phosphorus is reported as % of P2O5.
Fig 2

  1. Download: Download high-res image (382KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 2. Combined mean interaction effect responses for equilibrium NH3 concentration (a), MC (b), pH (c), and Aw for litter treatments over time. The LS-means are provided for NH3 and pH because their litter treatment x time interaction effect was significant at P ≤ 0.05. a-fMeans that do not share a letter are significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Initial NH3 measurements were elevated for the control and BC, which can be attributed to preheating the chamber (Purswell et al. 2013). In addition, factors such as oxygen, moisture, and carbon-nitrogen ratio can impact NH3 volatilization (Wang et al., 2015). The low NH3 concentrations for the control over time are inconsistent with previous studies that reported an increase in NH3 for untreated broiler litter. (Purswell et al., 2013; Calvet et al., 2011; Hile et al., 2012; Reece et al., 1979; Singh et al., 2009; Choi and Moore 2008) (Fig 2a). The cause of the low NH3 measurements at d 28 and 41 for the control is unclear; however, the litter pH for the control was 6.9 and 6.6 on d 28 and 41, respectively. It is possible that more nitrogen was stored in the litter as non-volatile NH4+. Although no issues with the photoacoustic gas monitor were reported during the experiment, future studies will consider using a second device to verify NH3 concentrations.
Treatment and grow-out time had a significant effect on MC; however, there was no interaction effect (P = 0.889) (Table 1). BC-treated litter had the lowest average MC at 16 %. This may be attributed to BC’s porosity and surface area that help absorb moisture. All treatments significantly increased in MC from day 17 to 41. This was likely a result of increased moisture deposition as birds matured. At day 41, all treatments were above the recommended threshold for MC (25 %); however, BC was closest to the recommended levels (25.8 %) (Collett, 2012). The results suggest that BC may be effective at reducing litter MC; however, an extended trial would give greater insight into BC’s effect on moisture. The mean RH across all chambers ranged from 63.3 % – 65.8 %, with an overall mean of 64.1 % RH. The RH was within the recommended range of 50 % – 70 % (Winn and Godfrey, 1967).
Litter amendment did not significantly affect Aw; however, grow-out time had a significant effect (P <.0001). Similar to MC, Aw would increase as birds matured and deposited more moisture into the litter. There were no significant interaction effects for Aw (P = 0.873). Aw measures the amount of free water in a system that can be used by microorganisms. The minimum Aw for pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, and Clostridium perfringes is 0.95, indicating the litter from this study was not at high risk of pathogen colonization (Barbosa-Canovas et al., 2008). However, litter MC and Aw likely vary within a pen, with higher water deposition found near drinker lines. Drinker line spillage and leaks are a primary moisture source in broiler operations (Dunlop et al., 2015, Dunlop et al., 2016b). Wet litter promotes the proliferation of microorganisms, including pathogens. (Agnew and Leonard, 2003, Wadud et al., 2012, Ritz et al., 2017).
The application of PLT and BC on day 0 resulted in a significant reduction in NH3 compared to the control (Fig 2a). However, there was no statistical difference between the control and PLT from d 14 – 41. PLT can lose its efficacy after approximately 14 – 21 d, which is consistent with the current findings (Ritz et al., 2017; Linhoss et al., 2019). The pH results also showed that PLT caused a significant reduction in pH at d 0 compared to the control but were comparable to the control and BC treatments from d 29 – 41 (Fig 2c). The primary purpose of PLT is to lower litter pH to reduce NH3 volatilization; however, this study indicates PLT’s acidifying properties are diminished around 29 d, or halfway through a typical commercial broiler grow-out of 56 d (Danko, 2023). However, PLT treatments and control groups NH3 concentrations did not exceed recommended levels of >25 ppm after d 14. Studies have found that multiple applications of PLT on a biweekly basis reduce NH3 generation throughout the grow-out cycle (Purswell et al., 2013). This may be an effective method to maintain NH3 reductions in commercial broiler houses; however, more research is needed to evaluate the effects of multiple PLT applications on equipment and operational costs (Purswell et al., 2013).
The effects of litter treatment, time and their interaction on nutrients are provided in Fig. 3. Total nitrogen was highest in PLT-treated litter at 3.98 % (32.2 g kg-1), likely due to a lower pH that favored N retention. BC-treated litter contained the least nitrogen at 3.10 % (25.4 g kg-1). The nitrogen content reported in this study for BC amended litter is similar to previous results that reported a nitrogen content of 24.7 g kg-1 (Linhoss et al., 2019). Additionally, the study reported a litter pH for control and BC-amended litter of 6.68 and 6.79, respectively, at day 35 (Linhoss et al., 2019). These results were comparable to the current study, which reported a pH of 6.95 and 6.59 for d 41 BC treatments and the control, respectively. Nitrogen increased over time for all treatments, and there was an interaction effect between treatment and time (P = 0.0013) (Fig. 3a). An increase in nitrogen over time is likely due to the increased deposition of nitrogen-rich excreta as birds matured. Overall, PLT-treated litter was not statistically different regarding pH when compared to the control litter. Similar to NH3, PLT-treated litter was more acidic compared to the control in the first half of the study but was comparable to the control from d 29 – 41.
Fig 3

  1. Download: Download high-res image (254KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 3. Combined mean interaction effects for broiler litter nitrogen (a), potassium (b), and phosphorus (c) content over time reported as % dry mass. LS means are provided for nitrogen content because of the significant interaction effect with litter treatment x time (P = 0.0013). a-hMeans that do not share a letter are significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Overall, litter amendments did not impact live bird performance variables including body weight (BW), body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), or FPS (Table 2). Mortalities were not different between litter treatments (P = 0.42). Mean mortalities were 1.0, 3.5, and 1.6 for the control, BC, and PLT, respectively. These results are similar to several other studies that have examined BC and PLT as litter amendments (Nagaraj et al., 2007; Purswell et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2015; Linhoss et al., 2019). Average weights for d 42 were 3,300 g for the control, 3,193 g for BC, and 3,178 g for PLT-treated pens.

Table 2. Broiler performance data over a 42 d grow-out

Age Variable1 C Mean2,3 BC Mean3 PLT Mean3 SEM P-value
14 d BW (g) 443 435 443 6 0.5033
BWG (g) 401 393 402 6 0.4956
FI (g) 442 445 459 10 0.4590
FCR 1.10 1.13 1.14 0.02 0.3486
28 d BW (g) 1581 1579 1564 20 0.8061
BWG (g) 1539 1537 1522 20 0.8009
FI (g) 1982 1987 1995 26 0.9431
FCR 1.29 1.29 1.31 0.01 0.4091
42 d BW (g) 3230 3216 3217 59 0.9826
BWG (g) 3188 3174 3175 59 0.9826
FI (g) 4658 4620 4737 75 0.5548
FCR 1.47 1.50 1.50 0.01 0.2802
42 d 4FPS 0.32 0.68 0.6 0.13 0.1155
42 d Mortality ( %) 1.0 3.5 1.6 2.7 0.4190
1
Performance variables include body weight (BW), body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), foot pad scores (FPS), and mortalities.
2
Control of no litter amendment (C), biochar (BC), and poultry litter treatment (PLT) used as litter treatments.
3
Values represent the LS mean of 5 replicate pens containing 44 birds/pen at placement.
4
Foot pad quality was evaluated using a 3-point system that assigned lesions the following scores: 0 = no lesions, 1 = lesions < 1.5 cm, 2 = lesions > 1.5 cm
FPS showed no significant difference in foot pad lesions among treatments (P = 0.1152). Birds raised on BC-amended litter had an overall mean FPS of 0.68, followed by PLT (0.60) and the control (0.32). Studies have reported similar live performance results that found no difference in performance and paw quality for birds raised on PLT or BC (Nagaraj et al., 2007, Purswell et al., 2013; Linhoss et al., 2019). The presented results support that BC and PLT as amendments do not have an adverse effect on broiler FPS and performance.
Litter treatment and grow-out time had a significant impact on NH3 volatilization, MC, pH, and nitrogen content. It is likely the treatment and time effects on NH3 were driven by elevated readings in BC-treated chambers at d 41, and future studies will consider using multiple NH3 measuring equipment. Overall, BC addition to litter reduced MC and may be beneficial for lowering litter moisture, which can improve litter quality through reducing NH3 emissions, litter caking, and microbial growth. The application of litter amendments did not have a negative impact on bird performance.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

  • 1.
    BC may not be suitable for reducing NH3 in commercial broiler houses.
  • 2.
    BC significantly lowered litter MC and may be a beneficial amendment for reducing moisture in commercial broiler litter.
  • 3.
    PLT and BC amendments did not significantly affect bird live performance or FPS.
  • 4.
    Equilibrium NH3 concentrations were not significantly different between PLT-treated litter and the control after 14 d, indicating that PLT may not perform better than non-amended litter after two weeks.

Source: Science Direct

Vent Prolapse in Chickens

By
Sophi Fairman
-

One of the most common health conditions of laying hens is vent prolapse. Other names for the condition are blowout, cloacal prolapse, and prolapsed oviduct.

What Is Prolapse?

Prolapse is actually the natural process by which a hen lays eggs. When a hen is ready to lay an egg, her vagina tightly grips the completed egg. To deposit the egg, the tissue then pushes the egg through the cloaca by prolapsing, or turning itself inside out.

The tissue then typically withdraws back inside the hen. A serious health issue occurs, though, if the pink tissue remains protruding outside the vent.

In that case, the protruding tissue attracts other chickens to start picking. If the situation continues, eventually the flock will pull out the victim’s innards. The hen will then die from hemorrhage and shock, a condition known as pickout.

Causes of Vent Prolapse

The cause of vent prolapse often relates to the hen’s age and management. Any condition that weakens vaginal muscles, including infection, can result in vent prolapse.

A pullet may prolapse if she starts laying before her body is fully mature. Vent prolapse is especially likely if the pullet is laying big double yolk eggs. The appearance of eggs with two yolks is often a sign that the pullet’s production cycle is not yet synchronized.

Calcium deficiency can result in vent prolapse. Commercially formulated rations may claim to include adequate calcium, but in fact they may not provide enough for some laying hens. Access to a calcium supplement is therefore essential, offered free choice, separately from lay ration. Supplements include ground aragonite, crushed oyster shells, or chipped limestone.

Vent prolapse can occur in an older hen that’s overweight. Some hens gradually accumulate fat as they age. That’s especially true of cold hardy breeds that have a natural tendency to put on extra fat for warmth. Obesity is also likely when chickens are fed more energy-rich feed than they need, often in the form of too many treats.

To determine if a chicken is overweight, check the area below her vent. If it bulges and looks dimply, the hen is too fat.

Treating Vent Prolapse

If you catch a vent prolapse in time you can often reverse it. Clean the protruding tissue, apply an anti-inflammatory cream (such as hydrocortisone), and gently push the tissue back inside the hen.

If the tissue comes back out, repeat the treatment. In an extreme case, an avian veterinarian can stitch the tissue in place.

To prevent picking and give the hen time to heal, isolate the patient until she improves. Be sure to provide feed and clean water.

Discouraging the hen from laying will help her heal more quickly. Arrange her recovery unit in a place where she gets no more than 8 hours per day of light. For instance, you might let her outdoors for 8 hours. Then bring her into a darkened area for the rest of the day.

Be aware, though, that once a hen experiences a vent prolapse, she may do so again in the future. Or, she may not.

And that’s today’s news from the Cackle Coop.

Source: Cackle Hatchery

Hoosier poultry producers were generous with their communities again throughout 2024

By
Sophi Fairman
-

Monday, Gov. Eric Holcomb, Indiana State Department of Agriculture Director Don Lamb and the Indiana State Poultry Association recognized the generosity of Indiana’s poultry producers at the 77th annual Governor’s Poultry Presentation at the Indiana Statehouse.

Over the past year, Indiana poultry farmers and businesses have continued their long practice of working to address food insecurity in the communities within which they operate and across the state.

Through their generosity, Indiana food banks and community organizations were able to offer 250,000 pounds of nutrient-rich duck, turkey and chicken meat to Hoosiers in need. Indiana chicken egg producers supplied food banks with one million dozen eggs, and duck producers donated upwards of 50,000 dozen eggs this year as well. Beyond the donation of poultry and eggs, poultry companies provided in excess of $120,000 in direct contributions to various not-for-profit and charitable organizations in their communities.

“Indiana poultry producers truly embody the generosity of the Hoosier spirit,” said Gov. Eric Holcomb. “The members of the Indiana State Poultry Association are committed to feeding the world and their neighbors alike. I want to thank them for their commitment to strengthening Indiana agriculture and for their bountiful donations throughout this past year.”

For decades, Indiana’s poultry producers have been working to address food insecurity in local communities by providing protein to food banks across the state. Some of the main products that were donated over the course of this year included eggs, chicken, duck and turkey.

The strength of Indiana’s poultry sector was also recognized during the ceremony as Indiana is one of the top poultry producing states in the country. According to the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, Indiana ranks No. 1 in duck production, No. 3 in egg production, No. 4 in turkey production and is home to high quality broiler chicken production as well.

Poultry farming and processing is a substantial economic driver for the state contributing more than $18.34 billion in total economic activity. The sector directly employs 12,792, and it supports an additional 35,719 jobs in allied industries and services across the state according to according to the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association.

ISPA President Becky Joniskan shared, “Protein is such an essential part of a healthy diet, and everyone, regardless of their situation, benefits from having nutritious poultry and egg products on their plate. Indiana’s poultry companies and the many family farms they represent recognize their responsibility to their neighbors, and they are humbled to be able to share the work of their hands with the communities and state they call home.”

The poultry products on display today were donated to Second Helpings, a hunger relief agency, in Indianapolis. This ceremony marks an annual tradition that dates back to the late 1940s. Organized by ISPA, one of the oldest poultry organizations in the nation, it was designed to celebrate the strength and generosity of Indiana’s poultry industry, as well as the annual donations made by its members, who are responsible for more than 95% of the chicken, duck, turkey and eggs produced in Indiana.

Source: Marshall County Post

Battling Marek’s Disease: New Genetic Frontiers in Poultry Health

By
Sophi Fairman
-

Poultry holds the title of the most widely consumed meat globally. However, this staple food faces a serious threat in the form of Marek’s disease—a highly contagious illness with mortality rates ranging from 10% to 50% in unvaccinated chickens, and up to 90% in certain breeds.

As the world’s second-largest chicken exporter, behind Brazil, the U.S. poultry industry is a powerhouse. In 2022 alone, the sector supported over 1.5 million jobs, $95 billion in wages, and contributed $417 billion to the economy, according to the National Chicken Council. Yet, Marek’s disease exacts a significant toll, with global economic losses surpassing $2 billion annually due to condemned meat, reduced egg production, and vaccination expenses.

To combat this, poultry producers rely heavily on vaccines. However, researchers at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) are charting a new course—using insights into host genetics and epigenetics to develop long-term solutions for disease resistance. “A deeper understanding of these mechanisms could lead to more effective vaccines and better disease management,” says Dr. Huanmin Zhang, an animal geneticist with the ARS Endemic Poultry Viral Diseases Research Unit in Athens, Georgia.

What is Marek’s Disease?

Marek’s disease is caused by a strain of the herpes virus that induces tumors and a variety of debilitating symptoms in chickens, including paralysis, weight loss, and vision impairment. The disease spreads through direct bird-to-bird contact or indirectly via contaminated materials like feather dander. Importantly, it poses no threat to humans.

Advancing Resistance Through Genetics

Dr. Zhang and his team are focusing on the genetic and epigenetic factors that influence resistance to Marek’s disease. Their aim is to uncover how these factors interact with the virus and vaccination processes, paving the way for targeted breeding strategies and enhanced vaccine efficacy.

A major breakthrough from this research is the creation of a “pangenome” for domestic chickens. Developed in collaboration with Washington University School of Medicine, the pangenome represents the complete set of genes across all chicken breeds descending from a common ancestor. This resource allows scientists to pinpoint genetic differences among breeds and identify traits that could bolster disease resistance.

“The pangenome enables us to better understand the impact of genetic variations and facilitates breeding programs aimed at enhancing resistance to Marek’s disease,” explains Dr. Zhang.

A Global Effort for Disease Control

Containing and mitigating Marek’s disease will require collaboration among researchers worldwide and continued advances in biotechnology. Dr. Zhang notes that progress in understanding and managing the disease has accelerated over the past two decades, outpacing gains made in the previous 50 years.

Through genetic insights and innovative approaches, scientists are striving to protect poultry populations, ensure food security, and minimize economic losses—a vital effort for an industry that feeds millions and supports livelihoods around the globe.

Registration & Hotel Reservations for Attendees Open December 4

By
Sophi Fairman
-

Registration and hotel reservations for attendees to PEAK 2025 – powered by the Midwest Poultry Federation – open Wednesday, December 4 at www.midwestpoultry.com.

Show dates are April 8-10, 2025 at the Minneapolis Convention Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. PEAK is the nation’s largest trade show and convention in North America focused exclusively on the business and food production of poultry. PEAK 2025 offers a variety of education, networking and trade show activities that bring the poultry industry together.

Included in all PEAK registration fees

  • Multi-State Poultry Feeding & Health Conference on Tuesday, April 8
  • Education tracks for turkeys, egg layers, broilers, and (NEW track) poultry diseases on Tuesday, April 8
  • NEW in 2025 – PEAK-Cargill Education Theater, with a variety of topics and speakers running all day Wednesday, April 9 and half-day on April 10
  • Business and Leadership Track for leadership and professional development – exact schedule to be announced in early 2025
  • PEAK’s Exhibit Hall – open 10am-5pm on Wednesday, April 9 and Thursday (half day), April 10

Don’t forget – PEAK Unhatched is back and will be better than ever!

  • PEAK Unhatched: An Evening of Eats and Entertainment takes place opening night at PEAK – Tuesday, April 8 starting at 5:00 pm. at the Minneapolis Convention Center; tickets are $50/person (in advance or $100/person the day of the event) and include a full bar all evening, an abundance of food, and the Bluewater Kings Band, a high energy ensemble that will be epic!

“PEAK 2025 is the ultimate destination for anyone in the poultry industry looking to stay ahead of the curve. With our expanded Education Theater offering up to 30 presentations and a trade show floor showcasing the latest innovations, PEAK is where connections are made, knowledge is shared, and solutions are found,” said Lisa Henning, President of MPF. Henning works for Henning Companies, a long-time exhibitor at the show. “Don’t miss this opportunity to grow your business and your expertise in one powerful event.”

PEAK’s long-time partnering events include:

  • Organic Egg Farmers of American Symposium (April 8) – NEW in 2025, you will be able to add a registration ($40/person in advance) for this event via the PEAK registration process – click here for information
  • Devenish Nutrition Symposium (April 8 by invitation only) – click here for information
  • North Central Avian Disease Conference (April 7-8) – separate registration process or this event; click here for information

Registration fees for PEAK 2025 are as follows:

  • Attendee (includes all live production – farmers, processing companies, hatcheries, breeders; government personnel; academic personnel; poultry nonprofit organizations; and spouses of paid registrants) – $50 in advance / $100 at the door
  • Supplier (non-exhibiting vendors of the poultry industry) – $400 in advance / $800 at the door
  • Students (2-year, 4-year, and technical schools as well as youth accompanying parent/paid adult) – complimentary

Details on all PEAK events, education program, and the list of exhibitors are available at www.midwestpoultry.com.  You may also contact MPF with any questions at info@midwestpoultry.com or 763/284-6763.

 

About the PEAK and MPF

Midwest Poultry Federation (MPF), a 501(c)6 nonprofit organization, was founded in 1971 and held its first convention in Minneapolis in 1972. MPF’s primary purpose is to host an annual convention emphasizing on-farm poultry production. The convention’s goal is to offer cutting-edge information to attendees through a balanced offering of exhibits and educational workshops.

PEAK stands for Profitability, Experience, Advancement and Knowledge – MPF’s promise to attendees is to always provide these four keys to unlocking success for your business.

In 2024, PEAK welcomed nearly 3,300 attendees and exhibitors to its show. All revenue (after expenses are paid) generated by PEAK is given back to MPF’s member state poultry organizations and also donated to various poultry organizations, like the Midwest Poultry Consortium and the National 4-H Poultry and Egg Conference.

 

Peach and Blossom Pardoned in White House Thanksgiving Tradition

By
Sophi Fairman
-

Peach and Blossom, two turkeys from Minnesota, were granted a ceremonial reprieve by President Joe Biden during the White House’s annual Thanksgiving turkey pardon on Monday.

The birds, weighing 40 and 41 pounds, were hatched on July 18 in Northfield, Minnesota. They were raised by John Zimmerman, chairman of the National Turkey Federation, along with his 9-year-old son, Grant. The two introduced the turkeys during an event in Washington over the weekend.

To prepare the birds for the event, Zimmerman implemented special training to help them remain calm in a busy city environment. The preparation involved exposure to bright lights, cameras, and a variety of music to simulate the sensory experiences of Washington, D.C. Neighborhood children, including Grant, also contributed to raising the turkeys and ensuring they were comfortable ahead of their White House debut.

The event itself featured a presidential speech, lighthearted humor, and a flurry of media activity, marking a cherished holiday tradition.

Clostridial Dermatitis: Turkey Diseases and Treatment

By
Sophi Fairman
-

Learning turkey diseases and treatment is one of the biggest issues for turkey farmers, and one of the scariest diseases a turkey farm can experience is clostridial dermatitis.

 

October 2024 Sees Growth in U.S. Poultry Production, Boosted by Chicken Output

By
Sophi Fairman
-

The United States saw a notable rise in poultry production during October 2024, with the total output reaching 4.922 billion pounds, a 4% increase compared to the same period in 2023, according to USDA data. The growth was largely fueled by a surge in chicken production, which climbed 4% to 4.416 billion pounds, effectively balancing out a 1% decline in turkey production to 493.928 million pounds.

Chicken processing saw significant activity, with 871.023 million birds slaughtered—up 4% from the previous year. Despite the increased numbers, the average live weight for chickens remained consistent at 6.7 pounds. Turkey production, on the other hand, experienced a 5% reduction in the number of birds processed, totaling 19.601 million. However, this drop was partially offset by a 4% increase in the average live weight, which reached 31.68 pounds.

Year-to-date poultry production has reached 44.394 billion pounds, slightly outpacing the same period in 2023, indicating steady growth in the sector.

The USDA is set to release updated forecasts for poultry production for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025 on December 10, which will provide further insights into the industry’s trajectory.

Poultry Market Intelligence Forum to Provide Industry Outlook and Food Systems Consumer Insights at IPPE

By
Sophi Fairman
-

USPOULTRY will host its annual Poultry Market Intelligence Forum at the 2025 International Production & Processing Expo (IPPE) in Atlanta, Ga. This year’s forum will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025, and is complimentary for all registered IPPE attendees.

The program will feature economic industry experts offering their insights on the current state of the global poultry industry and their forecasts for 2025. In addition, a food and nutrition expert will provide insight into identifying and addressing communication gaps related to food. The speakers will highlight key challenges facing the poultry industry, explore how the U.S. and international poultry sectors are positioned for the future, and address misinformation, while promoting science, to advance the food systems dialogue from farm to fork. The speakers and topics to be covered are as follows:

Economic Update
Mark Jordan, executive director
LEAP Markets Analytics

2025 Washington Update
Christian Richter, principal
The Policy Group

Going the Distance: Engaging from Farm to Fork
Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, president and CEO
International Food Information Council

IPPE will offer a series of complimentary educational programs in addition to the Poultry Market Intelligence Forum. IPPE will take place at the Georgia World Congress Center. For more information and to register and reserve housing for the 2025 IPPE, visit ippexpo.org.

2025 IPPE SHOW DATES/HOURS:
Tuesday, Jan. 28: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. EST
Wednesday, Jan. 29: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. EST
Thursday, Jan. 30: 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. EST

Source: US Poultry & Egg Association

1...91011...503Page 10 of 503

Poultry News

Poultry News

Poultry Science Association Acquires European Poultry Science, Moving to Open Access

The Poultry Science Association, a professional scientific society representing more than 1,850 scientists, educators, researchers, and industry professionals around the world, announces the purchase...

US to build new stockpile of bird flu vaccine for poultry

Poultry News

Research to Combat Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)

Poultry News

2025 IPPE Silent Auction to Benefit Atlanta Community Food Bank

Poultry News

Poultry is Good, People Should Know It

Poultry News

Copyright © 2024 poultryproducer.com . All rights reserved.

Translate Web in Your Language »